[mythtv-users] Better think twice before choosing an FS especially for LVM

[Scot L. Harris]

On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 16:20, Brandon Beattie wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 04:08:02PM -0400, Tom Lichti wrote:
> > But you wouldn't need to shrink the filesystem to replace the disk with 
> > RAID5, if you use enough disks (minimum 3). Of course there is a trade 
> > off in terms of available data space, but if what you put on there is 
> > important to you, it's worth it. At least for me it was. Performance is 
> > increased as well, since you have more spindles to read and write from 
> > simultaneously.
> 
> .. You need to re-read what I said.  My point was not avoiding a failed
> disk problem.  My point even exists if you simply want to remove a disk,
> for any reason -- You can't unless you're going to put a new disk in its
> place, that is the problem/hidden pitfall to XFS, JFS, and Reiser4 with
> LVM.  I have no desire to get into the raid debate because it's
> completely unrelated to the problem I brought up.  If you're curious why
> I chose not to do raid, e-mail me and I'll explain off-list.
> 
> --Brandon

If you are concerned about failed drives LVM is not a solution.  RAID is
a solution to handling failed drives.

You have an excellent point regarding that fact that you can not shrink
certain file systems.  IMHO trying to use LVM to provide a solution for
handling failed drives or as a method of replacing failed drives is not
the right tool for that job.

I currently run a 1TB XFS file system for one application, no raid. 
If/when there is a failure I will lose data.  For this application I
don't consider that a major problem.  :)